Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "BBC News" channel.

  1.  @kouroshington  Way to miss the point. It's irrelevant who he is, the point is that he is an interviewer and his personal views are irrelevant.
    1
  2. So he prepared for the interview? It's an interview about Ben's beliefs and his work, he shouldn't need a prompt.
    1
  3. Sure he did, now pull the other one.
    1
  4. Not according to Ben. He tweeted about how he got destroyed shortly after this interview, and even spoke about how unprepared he was going into this in other interviews. Maybe that's because attacking the interviewer rather than answering the questions just makes you look like a big child.
    1
  5. Losing means you lost. If you whine about having to explain your viewpoint, blatantly lie, come off as a hypocrite and run away then you lost.
    1
  6. Intellectual? Where?
    1
  7.  @nealamesbury1480  Then you need to try opening your ears. Ben went on to talk about his book. Andrew Neil was well prepared, having both read the book and researched Ben's history to find either supporting statements or contradictory ones to Ben's book. He went in prepared with numerous examples of Ben contradicting himself, and Ben's inability to respond effectively, instead deciding to attack a conservative interviewer by calling him left-wing, was him getting slowly choked out throughout the 15 minute exchange. You can see how Ben should have responded when he answers questions on Trump, which makes sense as supporting fascists is his home territory. Imagine if he answered all the other questions as effectively. He of course could never do that as it would reveal too much about how extreme his actual viewpoints are. For example: On the questions about abortion Ben changed the question from "6 weeks" to "6 months", changing the relative context of his answer as a result. Roe v Wade doesn't even allow 6 months (cutting at 23 weeks), yet he felt content to argue the point this way. Lying about his own Youtube channel, claiming he has no control over his own titles. Attacking other Jews as not real Jews, when in reality he means Zionists. Tries to dismiss all of the terrible horrible things he has said on Twitter, even lying about the context of those "old dumb" Tweets such as attacking the Palestinian people while claiming he was attacking Hamas. Even better is when he gets called out on the context, then doubles down on the lie. Attacking the interviewer while not understanding what Devil's advocate is or that the positions being proposed are not Andrew Neil's own position, and are literally there to be argued against. Attacking the BBC as trying to make money off of him, even though they have no advertising and no sponsors, and do not earn money from viewer numbers. Ben got absolutely torn to shreds here. To say otherwise is to be completely blind.
    1
  8. @Stick it where the sun dont shine You really don't understand what happened with HIV and Fauci do you?
    1
  9. @Stick it where the sun dont shine What you seem to be ignorant on is actually 3-fold. 1. At the time HIV was such a death sentence that almost nobody would live even a single year with the disease. 2. So little was known about it, but drugs were not being tested on people with HIV at the time. Fauci and the people working with him made it so that testing could be done on people with HIV. People in the HIV community and the medical community have actually praised him for the ability to start testing. 3. Fauci didn't push any specific drugs. AZT was one of the drugs being tested, and people who had a literal death sentence were open to the experimental treatment. What's more is that your claims on AZT are bollocks. It was both FDA approved and released as a generic 20 years later. They still prescribe it today.
    1
  10. That's because rather than responding to the questions and explaining his position in detail, he chose to attack the interviewer. The interviewer presented perfectly reasonable devil's advocate style questions, the issue however was that Ben was treating this as a debate. The questions are literally designed to give Ben the chance to address the deepest and most serious critiques of his work, and he failed at responding to them.
    1
  11.  @Youtuberfromspace.  Great response, did it take you a whole year to come up with? Unfortunately pointing out that Ben has money (mostly from scamming suckers like you) doesn't make his arguments any more logical. He is revealed as a hypocrite and a child in this interview. Your inability to see that is just straight cultism.
    1
  12. You're falling for Ben's sleight of hand. The original question was about an abortion bill that criminalises both abortions and miscarriages, and does so as far back as 6 WEEKS. Ben then counters, for some reason, with a question to the interviewer about third trimester abortions.
    1
  13.  @HaydenLMaxwell  It's a stupid opinion. He presented counters to Ben's personal opinions, using his own comments against him. All Ben needed to do was come out and explain his current position, but that would mean he would either have to admit he was wrong in the past, or admit to being a nutcase. He wants to do neither so he attacks the interviewer and avoids the questions.
    1
  14.  @HaydenLMaxwell  Especially Ben.
    1
  15.  @greyguy.960  That's nice dear. Keep making things up, it's always good for a laugh. Let me know when you can present said Ofcom reports, as we both know you can't, because actual reports say nothing of the sort. Again, Ofcom's claims of political impartiality in respect to the BBC are based entirely on public perception, a perception fueled by the likes of Sky "News". Tony Hall resigned over the BBC hit after a pay disparity lawsuit. The accusations of bias come directly from the Tory government, meaning you are guilty of believing a bunch of right wingers when they say that a neutral news source is not right wing enough. It's actually pathetic. Next you'll be telling me that The Sun called them bias as well.
    1
  16.  @CatGamer-wc2ij  He wouldn't, but only because your questions falls away from Devil's advocate and into loaded question territory. There is a difference between asking someone if a position is a return to the dark ages, and stating someone of being a murderer. You could ask "is abortion not murder?" but not assume it as part of a question. You could even do what Andrew does and state that the policies being proposed are extreme hard policies (which I don't think anyone would really disagree with), but you can't assume something of the opposition.
    1
  17.  @CatGamer-wc2ij  It's not a difference in perspectives, and your personal bias is the issue in why you can't understand that.
    1
  18.  @CatGamer-wc2ij  And yet you can't see the difference in Andrew Neil's statements and your own characterisations of them.
    1
  19.  @CatGamer-wc2ij  Of course they have the right to life, after viability. Before then they are jus teaching off someone else. You don't have the right to assault someone constantly like that, and the result of them stopping that from happening is not taking your rights away.
    1
  20.  @CatGamer-wc2ij  I suppose that's all in how you define rights.
    1
  21. Like here, where he partially answered questions, openly lied several times, tried to ignore his record of glaring inconsistencies and rounded it off by insulted the interviewer. Did you even watch the interview?
    1
  22. That "news guy" is a famously right-wing Conservative. This is nothing to do with being on the left, as neither of these men have views on that side of the political spectrum. He asks tough questions and Ben crumbles. Neil proves that good questions can be asked by anyone, not just someone on the left.
    1
  23. He's right wing.
    1
  24. You mean not giving Ben a podium to lie and weasel out of questions? This is good journalism, you just don't recognise it any more because your own bias gets in the way.
    1
  25.  @nusha_kat  the one devoid of reality. Typical.
    1
  26. Because the rest of the world actually cares about other countries and global markets, while the US is very ethnocentric, not looking beyond itself to understand the world. This leads to idiotic people upset at the US President for petrol and diesel prices, shipping delays and wars half way around the world, when in reality they have very little control over any of these specific issues.
    1
  27.  @koledixon4701  Nobody HAS to care. There are plenty of nationalistic ethnocentric people in all countries. The difference is that other countries end up with a lot more exposure. People in the US really struggle with basic concepts, and make ill-informed political decisions as a result. You are brainwashed to not care about people around you.
    1
  28.  @rebeccachambers419  He lied about his YouTube channel. Both his personal channel and the Daily Wire channel contain multiple videos where Ben "destroys" someone. Attacking the onterviewers political views, calling them bias and saying you've never heard of them is an ad hominem attack. Nothing Ben said to try and discredit the interviewer changes the questions. Ben knows this, but trying to deplatform people is his thing.
    1
  29.  @davidtindley6556  So they should just pick random tweets? The opposite of cherry picking. You dislike how he comes across. It's irrelevant how he comes across though.
    1
  30.  @tocaat2410  That's fair, although I would argue that the BBC is very much in favour of many things "traditionally British". It really depends on your defintion of traditional however, as I struggle to come up with them pushing any positions that aren't in line with what I would view as Britishness. Do you have any examples?
    1
  31. You're joking right? I'm surprised people still took Ben seriously after this.
    1
  32.  @michaelengen7392  He failed to answer questions in full, attacked the interviewer, was shown to be a massive hypocrite and openly lied at least twice, and was even called out for one of those lies directly in the interview, only to end the discussion early and run away. Why would anyone on Earth take Ben seriously after seeing this?
    1
  33.  @michaelengen7392  Ben lied twice: 1. When he stated that the YouTube videos with combative titles were not uploaded by him. They are uploaded to both his person YouTube, and to The Daily Wire, which he founded. 2. When he started trying to change the context of his comments on the Palestinian people, which was quickly corrected. The hypocrisy really stems from someone as vile and toxic as Ben trying to claim that people are engaging in politics in a dishonest or angry way. When that exact issue is brought up he deflects to attack the interviewer.
    1
  34.  @michaelengen7392  The videos are still there, look for yourself. Actually he first tried to deflect and say that he was only referring to Hamas, and the context was wrong, and then it was pointed out to him that his next tweet said the exact opposite of this.
    1
  35.  @michaelengen7392  Try searching for them by name. They really aren't hard to find. Here you go champ: https://youtu.be/gkONHNXGfaM https://youtu.be/QtuqmThPE5c
    1
  36. An abortion is the right to bodily autonomy.
    1
  37. Ah yes, his secret alias, his own YouTube channel.
    1
  38. Actually Andrew is specifically asking questions which Ben struggles to answer honestly. If Ben went full truth half his base would leave him and he would be outed as an extremist.
    1
  39.  @davidhess1019  Well Ben doesn't do either of those, so not sure what your point is.
    1
  40.  @davidhess1019  Bes is a charlatan and a joke. He lies in this very interview.
    1
  41. Actually when he talked about this later on he admitted to being wildly unprepared. He even tweeted about how he took the L on this.
    1
  42.  @danielh3303  They didn't, and controlling the conversation is the job of an interviewer.
    1
  43.  @danielh3303  Wow, you really got me. Let me know when you find an interview where the interviewer has no control over the conversation. That way I can show you a crap interview.
    1
  44.  @danielh3303  No, it's called an interview.
    1
  45. Ah yes, all those ads they get money from with increased viewership...oh wait.
    1
  46. How clueless can you be? Ben can't even explain his own position.
    1
  47.  @nord1k467  Yet his response is to attack the interviewer like a child. And I'm sure you would love to have me experience something like this, but I don't make tweets like Benny does, probably because he's a sociopath that struggles to split his twitter lunacy from his tv image, hoping that by separating the two he can keep both his more and less extreme supporters happy at the same time. There is also nothing out of context here. This is an interview, he is being asked about his own opinions. That is the context. Obviously you will just make up anything to try and defend your pathetic nationalism apologist.
    1
  48.  @MrTrustme6  Was it the part where Ben lied or the part where he ran away that has you confused?
    1
  49. He is right. He is good at what he does. The questions were based on things from his book. It's not unprofessional or cheap, it's challenging, which is why Ben struggled so much.
    1
  50.  @wjsj69  So you don't think that pushing Ben so hard that he has to straight up lie and attack the interviewer is a good tactic? He played Ben against himself masterfully.
    1